"U.S. Media Guilty Of Treason-Enables Regime in Lies and War"

[Flying_Pig]

One thing became very apparent at the National Conference on Media Reform, held recently in Madison, WI (see story and link below), media in the United States is guilty of conspiracy, complicity, sedition, and treason.

>It is undeniable, that major media in this nation has aided and facilitated the Bush regime since before the 2000 election.

>They lied about President Gore, and engaged in character assassination, mis-characterizations, and slander against him.

>They lied for, and defended, G.W. Bush, refusing to publish negative information about his sordid history and psychological defects, for which, the country now is paying a very heavy price.

>They lied about the election results in Florida, and the causes for the "stolen" election. They ignored the conspiracy by and between, Jeb Bush, Katherine Harris, and Republican Party operatives, to outright steal the election.

>They lied about Iraq, and in the run-up to the war, aided and abetted the administration in disseminating propaganda they knew to be untrue. This continues today, with their refusal to air dissenting views, to show the dead and wounded coming home from Iraq, and a hundred other "facilitating efforts" geared towards manipulating public opinion to benefit the neonazicons currently running this government behind the scenes.

>They lie about the economy, the environment, the peace movement, and dozens of other issues, all in an effort to protect the Bush regime. Important stories on issues that affect the health and welfare of the citizens of this nation, if shown or printed at all, are relegated to the back pages of newspapers, especially if they might have a negative impact on public opinion concerning the Republicans, Bush, Israel, or their corporate benefactors.

>They publish blatantly biased pieces against the Democratic Party, and its candidates. Likewise, they publish puff pieces promoting the interests of the Republican Party, and its members. As an example, the Sunday news shows have turned into nothing more than hour-long propaganda fests, promoting the interests of the neonazicon infested Bush administration, and the Republicans. Opposing views, are held to a minimum, and/or, are shouted down and silenced, all with the permission of the moderator/host.

>The broadcast media has allowed the "conservative" movement, and the neocons, to set their agenda and story lines, in an effort to provide propagandistic support to their efforts to distort the truth. The "Reagan" movie is the most recent example of this, but we can see daily examples when it comes to reporting on events in Iraq, or concerning Israel and the Palestinians. The biases and untruths, are profound.

>Not since the demise of the Soviet Union, has the world seen a national media in such collusion with a national government. Their Orwellian tactics smack of totalitarianism and fascism. And it's not that the media is scared, and promoting regime propaganda out of fear, rather, they are a willing, and participating partner in these efforts.

Our Founding Fathers knew, that an active and robust "Fourth Estate" and free press was essential to a "living" democracy. They took steps (or so they thought) to insure the health of the "Fourth Estate", only to see, in modern times, those steps subverted and destroyed. Through corporate mergers, lax government control, and the repeal of laws (like the Fairness Doctrine) designed to insure media fairness, American media has become the mouthpiece of corporations, Republicans, special interests, and fascists.

The result, has led to nothing less than the demise of our democracy.

So how can we reverse this process, bring the media back into its proper place, in what's left of our democracy, and, punish those who have abused our laws and the public's right-to-know?

Here's a simple plan, one guaranteed to right the wrongs. Nothing, I repeat, nothing is more important to insure the survival of our democracy, and our nation, than to take the following steps, to wit;

1. Immediately after inauguration, the new Democratic President must, by Executive Order, immediately re-institute the Fairness Doctrine. After the primaries, and the nominee is chosen, we must prevail upon the nominee, through letters, faxes, and telephone calls, to promise to execute the above. The seemingly simple act of re-instituting the Fairness Doctrine, would have a more profound positive effect on the health of our democracy, than perhaps any other single act that could be undertaken. Without fairness, our media is doomed to control by the oligarchy and special interests, as is our nation.

2. Upon the appointment of a new Attorney General, the new President should demand the Justice Department immediately undertake RICO statue investigations and prosecutions against key corporate media figures, and companies. Furthermore, in cases where media can be proven have brought injury to the American people, and/or, have harmed the nation and its interests, they should be charged with conspiracy, complicity, and treason, and upon conviction, sentenced accordingly. Again, we must petition our nominee to support these actions.

3. Either through Executive Order, or, through Congressional legislation (provided we are able to obtain a majority that would support such legislation), FCC laws must be changed to immediately break up all media conglomerates. Additionally, laws should be passed to insure that media corporations are never again allowed to own more than a handful of outlets, in an effort to insure a free, and vital press.

These three steps, are all it would take to restore our democracy. Coupled with meaningful, and irrevocable, campaign finance reform, it would insure the health of our democracy for generations to come. Without them, we will be relegated to watching from the sidelines, as oligarchic fascists solidify their control over the nation, choking it, until democracy is completely, and totally, suffocated.

Here are links to two articles, well worth reading for those interested in saving this nation, and in understanding the vital role media is supposed to play in a democracy.

<snip>
Speakers say media bear some blame for Iraq war
11:40 PM 11/07/03
Scott Milfred State government reporter

Misleading and incomplete reporting by major news outlets helped President Bush steer America into war with Iraq, speakers said Friday during the opening session of a three-day National Conference on Media Reform at UW-Madison. <

"This war could never have taken place without the complicity of the news media," said John Stauber, author and founder of the Center for Media and Democracy, a group that seeks to expose corporate and government propaganda campaigns. "The media that sold this war doesn't want to examine how they did it." <

Amy Goodman, host of Pacifica Radio's "Democracy Now!" program, said war would stop if media outlets showed images of injured and dead Iraqi civilians, including children, as often as they showed images such as the toppling of a large statue of Saddam Hussein draped with an American flag. <

Goodman also faulted the media and U.S. government for failing to tally Iraqi casualties. She quoted Secretary of State Colin Powell as once having justified this by explaining that the military doesn't count enemy deaths. <

"I don't consider a little dead Iraqi girl or boy on the ground my enemy," Goodman said in front of about 1,600 people in the Great Hall of the Memorial Union on campus. <snip>

Link to more: http://www.madison.com/wisconsinstatejournal/local/60768.php

<snip>

Cronkite fears media mergers threaten democracy

By John Nichols
November 8, 2003

The most trusted name in news is worried about what is happening to the news media in America.

"I think it is absolutely essential in a democracy to have competition in the media, a lot of competition, and we seem to be moving away from that," said Walter Cronkite, the former CBS News anchorman, whose name remains synonymous with American journalism.

"The way that works is to have multiple owners, with the hope that the owners will have different viewpoints, and with the hope that the debate will help to air all sides, or at least most sides of the issues. But right now I think we're moving away from that approach."

Speaking to The Capital Times before this weekend's National Conference on Media Reform, Cronkite said he is particularly concerned by the decision of the Federal Communications Commission to relax media ownership rules. By a 3-2 vote in June, the commission approved proposals that would permit a single media company to own television stations that reach up to 45 percent of American households, and that would permit a single media company to own the daily newspaper, several television stations and up to eight radio stations in the same community. <snip>

Link to more: http://www.madison.com/captimes/opinion/column/nichols/60744.php

[DUreader]

1. Powerful Stuff, FP.

You write well

[Flying_Pig]

11. Thanks DU. I try...

:hi:

[G_j]

2. the next question

would be, What have the various candidates said concerning the Fairness Doctrine?

[Flying_Pig]

5. I'm not certain, but I believe that both Clark and Dean have stated

they support re-institution of the Fairness Doctrine. I am currently researching all of the candidates, and their positions on this subject, and when completed, I'll publish my findings.

I would imagaine though, the candidates would have to be careful concerning their public statements on these issues, lest the media gang up on them in an effort to kill their campaigns. We've seen before how viscious they can be (Gore).

[TAH6988]

3. I'm afraid

the the President can not issue executive orders to accomplish numbers 1 and 3 on your list.

[library_max]

6. And #2 is more than a little crazy.

You can't prosecute people for not saying what you want them to say. Hey Flying Pig, even heard of the First Amendment? It protects conservatives too. It even protects propaganda.

It'd be more constructive to try to approach this problem through private-sector means, like President Gore is trying to do. I would like to see the Fairness Doctrine come back again, although I don't think it would do what FP is expecting it to do. And breaking up the media conglomerates, while also a good thing, would be a sticky matter of FCC appointments and legislation, not something a President could do by fiat.

[Flying_Pig]

10. I am well aware of the 1st Amendment, BUT, it does not give

license to those whose actions have harmed and killed people, which some of the media certainly has, by facilitating the illegal conduct of the Bush regime. Sorry, the 1st Amendment does not protect murderers, no matter how liberal the interpretation.

[TAH6988]

12. You'd have a VERY

difficult time trying this to any crime, let alone murder. You have no direct casual link...way too tenuous. The First Amendment certainly does protect the media in this case. I'd hate to see ANYONE try to restrict free speech such as you are proposing.

[Flying_Pig]

13. As I stated in my original post, only in cases where it could be

where their actions directly brought harm, would I encourage prosecution. And unlike you, I can envison dozens of examples where the actions of the media has directly led to the deaths of either Americans, and or people from other nations. I don't have time today to list them all, but will do so another time.

As far as your aversion to "restricting free speech", I agree, BUT, when that the so-called "free speech" facilitates harm, or murders, or deaths, I disagree, as those who did the "facilitating are no longer covered by the 1st Amendment.

As an example, if I were to publicly agitate for the murder or death of someone, I would be arrested, and if my agitation lead to an actual death, I could be charged with murder. So how is it you figure the media gets a free pass if they do the same thing? Wouldn't my 1st Amendment rights in a case like this, or lack thereof, be the same as theirs?

According to the law, no one in this nation has the right to cause harm to another, directly, or indirectly, and the 1st Amendment does not give anyone an exclusion.

[TAH6988]

14. Don't name dozens

just name one...

[Flying_Pig]

17. OK, here's an easy one: The Valerie Plame case.

I haveto run into town now, so I won't be able to babysit my thread. I'll be back in a couple of hours, and I'll post a few more examples .

[TAH6988]

18. And who was

murdered as a result of that? What crime was committed?

[library_max]

23. In the Plame case

there is a legitimate argument that "outing" a CIA operative is a federal crime, and that Novak could be considered an accessory to that crime. But the Plame case is a very special, very specific case. It doesn't justify trying to prosecute the "corporate media" for pushing conservative viewpoints, including the pro-war viewpoint. War isn't legally murder. Saying it's so doesn't make it so.

[TAH6988]

24. There is also a legitimate

argument that NO crime was committed. (It was still WRONG, BTW)

[shance]

22. God, has it become "crazy" in America to hold wealthy people accountable?

With the exception of Martha Stewart if course.

You can hold some people accountable while others buy their way off.

Think of the message that sends kids in America. Committing crimes are okay as long as you have alot of money and get away with it.

Its overtime that media should become accountable and responsible for what they put in print.

[library_max]

25. What crimes are you talking about?

Is this thoughtcrime? Is it 1984 already?

This cry of "the media should be accountable" is a right-wing meme. It's censorship, plain and simple. It doesn't matter whether they have a lot of money or not. Pushing a point of view, even a point of view we strongly disagree with, is not a crime. Saying things we don't think are true is also not a crime. Even pretending that bias and outright propaganda are "fair and balanced" is not a crime. If you criminalize that sort of thing, freedom of speech goes up in smoke.

[Flying_Pig]

9. According to my research, I believethere is a way, either through

the use of EO's, and/or, emergency orders. If the issue of survival of our democracy does not constitute an "emergency", I don't know what does. If a president can issue emergency orders to protect the nation against terrorists, then certainly they can issue an order to protect against "domestic terrorists", which is what the media has become.

That said, a president has a number of tools they can use to re-institute something like the "Fairness Doctrine", even if only temporarily, until legislation can be facilitated to re-enact it on a permanent basis.

[TAH6988]

16. Executive Orders

Apply only to the Executive Branch of Govt, NOT to the media or any other non-governmental entity.

[cybildisobedience]

4. I agree, Flying Pig -

The two biggest issues we face are:
- corporate, pro-Republican control of the media
- electronic voting.
And I think we can even boil it down to one -- the media -- because if we really HAD a fair media atmosphere in this country, the electronic voting issue would cause an uproar and would never have gotten this far.
One thing I think candidates can do, though, in the meantime, is call Repuke media types on their bias. Shame them, if they have to. For ex., instead of jumping around like a bandit while Tim Russert shoots at his feet, John Edwards could have said some things like, "Well, I see you got your Republican talking points memo this morning....," or they could chide the interviewer about the accusatory, prosecutorial tone he uses with Democrats, but how solititous and fawning he is with people like Cheney, and Condi and all the other liars and thieves who go on these shows and say the most OUTRAGEOUS things -- that go unchallenged!!!!
I think it's time to take the gloves off with the media, and expose them for what they are -- mercenary soliders in Bush's war on democracy -- instead of allowing themselves to preen and pose and pretend that they are noble public servants who actually deserve the accolades that are nauseatingly heaped upon them.

[sam sarrha]

7. I recall in 1990 Bush Sr filed an ex-order that would suspend the

the constitution for 5 years, after the declaration of a "National Emergency" and institute a serious state of Martial Law under regional magistrates... I have a copy somewhere. 1-9-91

[TAH6988]

8. Can you just

post a link? Thanks!

[Nlighten1]

15. This is one of the reasons that DU is becoming a target.

Because people who can point out the criminal behavior of the junta are beginning to converge and arm themselves with knowledge.

Thinking is a dangerous pastime you know.

[Mysterio]

21. i totally agree...

thinking is something they don't do in the White House. I'd like to see those @$$holes try to shut down my new home here @ the DU.

Damn Bush Regime. :mad:

Mysterio

[Mairead]

19. They said the same thing about VietNam. And everything since

The press always prostitutes itself, and then after the damage is done, says 'oh we were succhhhh bad boys, we mustn't do that ever again'. And they hang their heads, and beat their breasts, and vie with one another to see who can do the most newsworthy rendition of 'mea culpa'.

But nothing really changes. Ever. The next imperialist adventure finds the same faces, or their successors, selling us out the same way, and then shedding the same crocodile tears after.

[Mysterio]

20. heh...

and the media is all liberal? Ha! Great reading, Flying_Pig. :hi: